A control plane is easy to draw. This one runs.
Sencai is a European cloud operating platform: one control plane over eleven natively integrated cloud providers and over the servers a company already runs itself. It is built and operated in the EU, from Prague. This page is for investors and for EU and national grant programmes, and it starts where the evidence is - with what the product does today.
What the product does today
One interface covers infrastructure that physically sits in different places. Eleven cloud providers are natively integrated - Hetzner, OVHcloud, Scaleway and UpCloud alongside AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, DigitalOcean, Vultr, Akamai/Linode and Oracle Cloud - and a customer's own servers join the same picture through a host agent. From there: provision instances and run their full lifecycle, manage networks, firewalls and DNS at the provider where its API supports it, discover what an account already runs and bring it under management without rebuilding it, track spend per organisational unit with caps, patch and monitor fleets, and reach a machine through a browser terminal with just-in-time elevation. Each organisation is a hard boundary with its own roles and invitations. That is the shipped surface, not a roadmap.
The obligations already have dates on them
NIS2 had to be in national law across the Union by 17 October 2024, and each transposition turns a directive into an obligation with a supervisor behind it. DORA has applied to financial entities and their IT suppliers since January 2025. The Data Act has applied since September 2025: switching charges are already capped and are prohibited outright from 12 January 2027, which turns leaving a provider back into a technical decision rather than a budget one. GDPR and the Schrems II line of decisions turned US jurisdiction into a legal argument rather than a technical detail. None of those dates are in the future. European companies now need more of what they run to sit demonstrably in European jurisdiction. The European landscape they are pushed toward is real but fragmented - national and regional operators, each with its own console, API and conventions. The compliant choice is currently the operationally worse one.
Why this is not a wrapper over a few APIs
A control plane built on other people's APIs invites that question, and the answer is in the shape of the work. Eleven provider integrations cover the instance lifecycle and discovery of what already exists, and networks, firewalls and DNS are managed at the provider wherever its API supports it - against public APIs that drift, disagree with each other and expose different subsets of the same idea. A firewall rule does not mean the same thing at two providers, and no two of them model a DNS zone the same way. Keeping that consistent behind one interface is unglamorous, continuous engineering, and it does not survive being done cheaply. Every provider added widens the surface a competitor would have to match before the comparison even starts, and every layer of depth inside a provider widens it again.
Evidence that can only be produced where the actions happen
Every action taken through the platform lands in an append-only, hash-chained audit trail. Each entry is cryptographically linked to the one before it, so a later edit or deletion breaks the chain and shows. The export carries entry_hash and prev_hash on every row, so an external auditor can recompute the chain from the file and does not have to take our word for any of it. For the customer that record is evidence for NIS2 obligations, GDPR accountability and internal control reporting, and it accumulates from the first day. It cannot be reconstructed elsewhere after the fact - it exists because the actions passed through here. Operational tooling that produces evidence as a by-product is difficult to leave.
One integration, paid for twice
Organisations subscribe on published tiers, with an on-premise edition sold as an annual licence for systems that cannot leave the building. Customers keep their own provider accounts and their own billing, and the platform acts on their behalf with credentials they can revoke. There is no migration project to scope, no new capacity to procure and no engineering quarter to justify before anyone sees value - the evaluation happens on infrastructure the buyer already runs. Separately, cloud providers pay to be built into the catalog customers choose from at the moment a workload is placed. A provider outside that list is not losing the comparison - it is absent from it, because the evaluation ends before its name comes up. Supply pays for distribution, demand pays for the product, and one body of integration work serves both.
What compounds, and what capital is for
Provider consoles are excellent and stop at the edge of one provider - they exist to keep a workload where it is, not to make it portable. General multi-cloud platforms are largely US-domiciled, which is the property the regulation is moving buyers away from, and their coverage reflects the market they were built for. What we hold grows with time in market rather than with capital alone: eleven maintained integrations, an audit trail accumulating in the customer's hands, and a catalog two-sided by construction. Capital goes to provider coverage while the regulatory window is open, to the security certification that shortens enterprise and public-sector procurement, and to commercial capacity matched to a demand curve a legislature already set. For EU and national grant programmes this is digital-sovereignty and cyber-resilience work, and the technical and audit documentation an assessor needs exists.
See it run before you decide
We would rather show the platform than present slides: a server provisioned at a European provider while you watch, and the audit trail for that action exported so you can recompute the hash chain yourself. Investors and grant programmes can reach us at investors@sencai.space - tell us what you invest in and at what stage, and we answer within one business day. Detailed metrics and references are shared directly, under NDA.